I believe the following might interest some readers

A

alan

New member
http://www.jpfo.org/savage2.htm

Additionally, re imported firearms, according to the "sporting purposes test", they must be either "particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or readilly adaptable thereto".

Interestingly in the law, the following things come to the interested readers attention:

1. Nowhere in the law are "sporting purposes" defined.
2. Nowhere in the law is "sport" defined.
3. Nowhere in the law is "readilly adaptable thereto" defined.

What we have here is the following. Than an agency whose past is a whole lot worse than simply checkered, somehow becomes empowered to make "subjective value judgements" which are, have been, and absent correctiove action, will continue to be the basis on which people are ruined financially and or jailed, sometimes both, and perhaps even killed by a bunch of tax collectors run wild.

I would think that such as this would in no way, under no imaginable circumstances, be remotely acceptable in this country, yet exactly this sort of fiasco has been ongoing for years, without sign of cessation.

I will close with just one more question. If such as this is not sufficient to cause readers to, at the very least, contact their "elected things" so as to raise hell with them over the criminality that they allow, then pray tell, what in the name of hell would be?

Thanks for your thoughtful attention.
 
Well Alan, one way of looking at the law is that it is inclusive, rather than exclusive. It doesn't define what IS sporting, only what is not. From that perspective, the law is much less restrictive than one written along the lines you demand.

Either way, it's all pretty stupid as past SC findings show that privately owned weapons are defined by their applicability to "militia" purposes, not sport. It's a house of cards.
 
Handy

Bear with me on a couple of points.

First one is the following. Did you read the material at the provided link. If not, would you please do so, and then consider getting back to me. Thanks.

Second point is the following. Due to the fact that the law was written in so poor a manner as is the case, one truly wonders as to why this is the case, the law abiding have to crawl around in the crap, at the feet of a bunch of gone wild tax collectors. This is what the ATF are you know, TAX COLLECTORS, for it is they that collect the federal taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Third point, "what I demand" is actually the following. Given the checkered record of the ATTU, the ATFD and more recently, The BATF, with and or without the lately added E, is that The Congress clean up another of the messes that they are a direct party to the creation of, therein checking the ludicrous antics of the BATF. I submit that no government agency should be allowed to operate on the basis of the subjective judgements of a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, as seems to be the case with the BATF and federal gun law. You talk about inclusive v. exclusive, making reference to the law not defining what sporting is, only what it is not. I hadn't noticed it doing
that, though I might have missed something interesting and or important.
 
"In 1996, FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. The string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that it was a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)." --Sterling Nixon, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

You've got to be kidding me.

Hey, I thought Shrike ar-15 uppers were not title 2 items. Doesn't that page say that the BATFE considers all belt-fed uppers to be machineguns?
 
tyme,

Doesn't that page say that the BATFE considers all belt-fed uppers to be machineguns?
Click to expand...

It said that the current FTB ruling is that belt-fed uppers for MAC-10/11's are considered machineguns in and of themselves.

It also claims that the magazine-fed ones are not.

Then it goes on to note, parenthetically, that all of these uppers fire from an open bolt.

One would think that Mr. Savage would be aware of the ATF's ruling on open-bolt semis back in the '80s, but maybe he ain't... (Having a new open-bolt upper and a grandfathered semiauto open-bolt MAC-10 could easily be interepreted as constructive possession of an unlicensed machinegun, much like having a 10" AR-15 upper and an AR-15 rifle, but no AR pistol or registered SBR lower on which to put it can be construed as constructive possession of an unlicensed SBR.)

I can, however, sympathize with his confusion regarding the ATF's stating that some upper parts kits for MAC conversions aren't guns at all, while others are machineguns. No less Byzantine than other odd chunks of ATF regs, though.
 
Tamara:

Re your use of the term "Byzantine" to describe ATF regs, did anyone ever tell you that you had a gift for words?

While Byzantine is likely a good start, it is certainly a polite term, useable in mixed company, I submit that it falls far short of adequacy.

From where I sit, and I admit to the perhaps imminent possibility of a lack of knowledge on my part, I would add that if anything, it is overly polite, considering whom we are dealing with, the ATF that is.
 
Alan,

I'm not sure why you have a problem with my post. I did read the link, I fully admit that the whole thing is ridiculous. But the sporting purposes thing does "work" as I said, and was the part I responded to.

And I wouldn't expect a Congress that passes laws that can't possibly work to hold one of its agencies to a higher standard. The scientific method can be found nowhere in government.
 
I've often considered designing a stapler or other common household item that can be disassembled and it's parts reconfigured into a lightning link. Given that the parts would have a legimate use as a stapler, or whatever item I fashioned, I would wonder how owning such a stapler and an AR-15 would hold up in court. Of course I'm not crazy or rich enough to actually test it out... lol
 
Handy:

Seems that I misread and or misunderstood your post. Sorry about that, however as to the sporting purposes test "working", I guess it all depends on how one spells the term, "working" that is.

As to your final note, "And I wouldn't expect a Congress that passes laws that can't possibly work to hold one of its agencies to a higher standard. The scientific method can be found nowhere in government".

TOUCHE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top